Dear Hollywood: The 'Stakeholders' For Copyright Policy Don't Fit In A Room

from the that's-one-big-room dept

Last week, we wrote about Hollywood super agent Ari Emanuel first demanding a magic stop piracy button from Google, followed by his request to sit down and meet with "the government" and representatives of "Silicon Valley" in a room. As we responded, that meeting is going on already, and it's happening online with the public -- the more important stakeholder, whom Emanuel has totally left out of the equation.

It's such a simple and important point that I wanted to repost it here. It needs to be repeated over and over again.

Ever since Hollywood lost the SOPA/PIPA fight, they keep claiming, over and over again, that Silicon Valley needs to get in a room with them. Chris Dodd has done it a bunch of times -- and each time we've asked why he doesn't actually go online and talk to the public. Now Ari Emanuel has done it too, and we need to repeat a paraphrase on Nate's tweet above.

Copyright's stakeholders don't fit in a room and must include the public, by definition

Any time we hear a demand for a company to do some sort of backroom deal on copyright, we need to remember and remind people:

Copyright's stakeholders don't fit in a room and must include the public, by definition

I doubt it will sink it, but perhaps if we remind them enough, they'll finally start to realize it.

Old timey internet

Re: Old timey internet

Well, following the IP paradigm of govt granted monopolies that promote artificial scarcities on zero-marginal-cost digital goods, the answer is: a very small room that will only fit those who stand to benefit the most from this law.

Alternatively, since digital goods = physical goods and infringement = theft in their worldview, the answer is also: a very small room, since a real (physical) room can only fit so many people.

Either way, the internet is evil, piracy is the #1 and only economic problem facing the entire world which could be stopped instantly if only google (and ONLY google) would just build their damn "stop piracy" button already and make it available to copyright holders (not artists or the average person mind you, only for the big guys. We'll just sweep under the rug that part of the 1976 copyright act that gives automatic copyright to anything created [that, by the by, the big media companies all pushed for] because that was never meant to protect the general public's creations, and certainly not when they are put on something as evil as Teh Internets.)

Re: Re: Re: Old timey internet

if hollywood worked like the internet, no one would get paid for anything, ever... do you guys support film and tv paying musicians to use their songs in films, or should producers of films and tv shows get the same "benefit" as companies operating online illegally?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Old timey internet

I'm curious too, on what companies (or any entities for that manner) you state are illegally operating online?

Would you care to name some, care to state a type of basic classification either. Though please entreat us with what jurisdiction these so called illegal enterprises come under too.

As for copyright encouraging creativity in Hollywood. Please explain what hollywood productions (movies or otherwise) in the last 100 years were NOT inspired by historical plays, pre-written novels, folktales, or other historical factoids of humanities history.

The only thing that encourages hollywood is the ability to use pre-existing works and transform them slightly into passable crap that the masses now consume whilst complaining that no-one will give them more money. Oh that and the creativity of accounting methodologies.

the reason they keep leaving 'the public out' is because 'the public' doesn't have enough money, singularly, to offer bribes so they can be included and if 'the public' was offered (a)bribe(s), it would be posted on the internet where it came from!

Some Game of Thrones spoilers...

[spoiler]
Last night after watching the Game of Thrones finale my partner asked me if King Joffrey knew that he wasn't the son of the previous king. It's hard to tell whether he KNOWS or not. He's heard the rumors that he's a bastard, certainly, and flies into a rage when he hears them, but does he believe them even a little, when his power depends on the rumors not being true? If he ever does believe it, he isn't allowed to let it show.
[/spoiler]

Ok...

It's a nice phrase and a valid point, but practically speaking irrelevant. Of course the 99% of the worlds population who do not benefit from copyright maximalism do not fit in a room! The 1% who do benefit don't fit in a room either! Issues such as these have to be decided by representative negotiators. In this case the best representatives for our side are probably people and entities like EFF, ACLU, DemandProgress, Mike Masnick, Rick Falkvinge (I'm sure many of you can generate a better list). These are the people the Dodds and Emanuels of the world should be talking to.

Re: Ok...

In this case the best representatives for our side are probably people and entities like EFF, ACLU, DemandProgress, Mike Masnick, Rick Falkvinge

The whole point about these people/entities is that they take input from everyone (like Mike is doing right now!). If you lock them in a room then they can't take that input - which sort of defeats the point.

You could put Mike, Nina, Rick, RMS, Lawrence etc in a room with Hollywood reps - but it wouldn't be long before one of them felt the need to break out and discuss the issues raise with a wider group.

Re: "Issues such as these have to be decided by representative negotiators."

Re: Ok...

'the best representatives for our side are probably people and entities like EFF, ACLU, Demand Progress, Mike Masnick, Rick Falkvinge etc.'

and that's exactly why the copyright maximalists wont be talking to them! i mean, talk to someone that can put valid points across and the truth in favour of less copyright if not none at all! get real! they either wouldn't turn up, as they haven't done to date, or would just shout down any and all arguments against them! let's face it, they still haven't understood/ignored why 100,000s demonstrated against ACTA yet!

Re: Ok...

"The 1% who do benefit don't fit in a room either!"

It's less than one percent. The govt keeps on harping about how all the stakeholders are present, and by stakeholders they mean those that benefit from IP laws and so the people present are a very small handful.

Re: Re: Ok...

and those present are the only ones receiving any representation on the matter, they almost all want more IP laws (for themselves) and so they are very close to the only ones that benefit from these laws and from the negotiations.

Sorry Hollywood

Don't be surprised if the public doesn't agree with your anything goes attitude!

The prevailing belief around here seems to be that Hollywood and Hollywood alone wants strong copyright. Everyone else and their grandmother is thoroughly on the side of Big Search which wants to call everything it does "fair use". But is that really true?

The public, however, has many, many cases where copyright serves its interests quite well. Despite the horse manure around here, copyright is really a grass roots legal structure because it blesses everyone when their work is rendered into fixed form.

Let's say you're a big multinational and you see a cute picture of some family using your product. Without copyright, you can just take it, plop it in your ads and make a fortune without sharing anything. Copyright forces you to cut a deal with the artist who took the picture-- often a family member.

The same goes for movies of that ballet performance, the piano recital, or the soccer game. The IP anarchists around here want people to be able to grab photos wherever they see them.

The IP anarchists will no doubt claim that the public will gain because they'll be able to post their mash up videos with official sound tracks by big name bands without worrying about DMCA take down notices. But is that a good trade for the people? Are they willing to be the official spokesphoto for any old company even a tobacco producer?

The fact is that almost 100% of the world creates art work protected by copyright and I'm sure that almost all of these creators are happy they keep control. Only a few percent are rabid filesharing cheapskates.

That's why you might not be so happy if the public does show up at your little party being engineering by the astroturfing consultants paid by Big Search. The public needs, wants and deserves the protection of copyright for their hard work. Only you want to strip it from them-- all so Big Search can protect its billions.

Re: Don't be surprised if the public doesn't agree with your anything goes attitude!

Re: Don't be surprised if the public doesn't agree with your anything goes attitude!

What is really sad here is that you do not recognize true fair use.

I have recently recorded a dance recital that my daughter was in. I want to upload it to Youtube but don't really feel like dealing with the fact that it will be targeted by either a takedown notice or ads placed over it. Why will one of these two events happen? Because there is some RIAA represented label's music in it.

I just want to share my daughter's recital with family members, but the RIAA thinks I am a dirty rotten pirate for using their music without authorization.

Re: Re: Don't be surprised if the public doesn't agree with your anything goes attitude!

Of course I recognize fair use, but that wasn't the debate here. It's not fair use for some big conglomerate to take my family picture from Flickr and use it in their ad campaign. It has nothing to do with the four tests of fair use.

Now your point is that you (1) want to control the video of your daughter's recital but (2) you don't want the composer to have any control. Sorry. It's a two edged sword. But there's an easy solution: play classical music. It's been a long time since I've been to a recital where the work was still in copyright. Beethoven, Bach and Mozart are great choices.

Face it. This web site is all about tricking the public into giving up the power to control their own work. It's about taking their photos and poems and postings so the big companies can make millions without ever sharing. The little people get a pat on the head and told what they're doing is "cool."

Re: Re: Re: Don't be surprised if the public doesn't agree with your anything goes attitude!

>Of course I recognize fair use

Bull. Half the arguments you shills have these days are either about how the definition of copyright hasn't changed, or how fair use has overstepped boundaries (DESPITE the claims by chefs that copyright allows them to ban photography of their food, and CEOs claiming that they needed SOPA as a legal means to shut down criticism and parody). You talking about fair use is like a cannibal talking about vegetarianism.

Re: Don't be surprised if the public doesn't agree with your anything goes attitude!

Re: Re: Don't be surprised if the public doesn't agree with your anything goes attitude!

No. The performer owns the copyright on the performance. The photographer owns the copyright on the photo. The poet owns the copyright on the poem. The public gets all of these things.

Alas, the sword cuts both ways. The composer also gets control -- and the composer often licenses this. Many school plays, for instance, come with a license that allows DVDs for parents and friends.

As it is, most piano students I know play the classics. Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart. They're all long out of copyright. The pianist is the only one left with control. If you want to play the latest Top 40 hit, you've got to share.

Re: Re: Don't be surprised if the public doesn't agree with your anything goes attitude!

Re: Re: Don't be surprised if the public doesn't agree with your anything goes attitude!

Why? I'm not sure we do. We just need to enforce the ones we have.

And while it may only be a few percent, it's an important few percent. If some folks are getting the work for free, that means others are paying more than their fair share. I'm sure you're all for fairness, right?

Or are you one of those techno-1%ers who thinks that your technical superiority allows you to use software not available to the average consumer?

Re: Re: Re: Don't be surprised if the public doesn't agree with your anything goes attitude!

And while it may only be a few percent, it's an important few percent. If some folks are getting the work for free, that means others are paying more than their fair share. I'm sure you're all for fairness, right?

No it doesn't. The fact that I paid for one out of a potentially infinite pool of digital copies has nothing to do with someone else who got one out of the pool without paying. It's not as if a Taiwanese sweatshop laborer had to print another copy to replace the one that wasn't paid for.

And so what if your rights are infringed by some tiny minority that gets $1 tracks for free? What is it worth to chase each of them down? $1000? $10,000? $1,000,000? If you're willing to burn Benjamins to save Lincolns, purely out of principal, you clearly don't have much sense.

Re: Re: Re: Don't be surprised if the public doesn't agree with your anything goes attitude!

Digitari asks

"Bob, I have to say that I agree with this statement, but, Bob My question to you is, if it's such a small percent;

WHY DO YOU NEED MORE LAWS TO PROTECT IP?

Obviously, by your OWN statement, you agree that infringement is a SMALL thing, why should you be allowed to trample MY rights??"

Bob replies - "Why? I'm not sure we do. We just need to enforce the ones we have."

There we have it folks. Straight from the horse's mouth. Not only is he completely clueless about why he's arguing for more enforcement, he ALSO argues for LESS AT THE SAME TIME (don't ask me how he does it) by saying "We just need to enforce the ones we have" i.e. we don't need to create new laws and ratchet up enforcement of those laws, we just need to enforce.
Also note, the last few words of Digitari's question go right by him, as in, bob doesn't deny the "trampling of my rights". By not denying it, he has certainly strongly implied that he IS trampling on rights.

Re: Don't be surprised if the public doesn't agree with your anything goes attitude!

The issue is net value for most people.

Is the (money/hassle) I spend on content provided by others greater than the financial or control benefits I get from being able to license my own output?

For most people, the licensing value of their output is within a rounding error of zero. This is not an insult, but rather a market perspective. Unless you're famous, the letters you wrote to Aunt Matilda are not going to be widely published. The anime fanart you slapped on DeviantArt? 50 cents, tops.

The "oh, someone could use your family or cat photo without paying you" is largely a strawman. If you beefed, there are probably a thousand other people with similar photos out there thrilled to be able to say "My dog was the Liver Smacks dog from 2012 to 2014!" It's like when politicians use music where the composer hates their platform-- even if you can legally get away with it by paying the appropriate license fees, the poor press is not worth it.

Re: Don't be surprised if the public doesn't agree with your anything goes attitude!

The public, however, has many, many cases where copyright serves its interests quite well.

Nope. They do not. In music, artists as well as the public are not served by copyright takedowns on music services that actually add music to either transaction.

In games, people are not served by DRM or imposed restrictions on people's access to their legally bought games.

In movies, artificial restrictions through windowing, regionalization and other DRM techniques are not in the public's interest. So the horse manure comes from those that feel that copyright, a 16th century phenomenon as a compromise in mercantilism will have much leeway in the 21st century.

But is that a good trade for the people? Are they willing to be the official spokesphoto for any old company even a tobacco producer?

False equivalency. People have found a good trade by not negotiating but using content as convenient. Please come back when your argument makes sense.

The fact is that almost 100% of the world creates art work protected by copyright and I'm sure that almost all of these creators are happy they keep control. Only a few percent are rabid filesharing cheapskates.

If that were true, then why do so many artists rebel against copyright and so few support it?

Re: Re: Don't be surprised if the public doesn't agree with your anything goes attitude!

Which public? I love how everyone around here speaks about the public as if they're sure that the world is completely on their side.

Where's your list of artists rebelling against copyright? It's a very, very short list. Most of the ones who've complained haven't advocated getting rid of copyright. They love the control it gives them over their works and I would bet money that most of the world would agree with this statement:

Should there be a law that allows a photographer to control who can reproduce the pictures they take of their children.

And that law is copyright.

As for your other stuff about DRM, I think it's off topic. We're just talking about copyright. But since you brought it up, I think many members of the public are in favor of statements like this:

Should there be a law the allows the publishers to ensure that everyone pays their fair share of development costs?

ANd that is copyright my friend. People like fairness. People hate the idea that some nerd is getting the movies for free when they have to pay. People like that support technical measures like DRM.

Re: Re: Re: Don't be surprised if the public doesn't agree with your anything goes attitude!

Bob, the list of people rejecting copyright enforcement is getting larger and I've not the time to comment on the number of artists in all fields who reject it.

Further, I as a consumer, do *not* care about a company's development costs. I care about value gained from a company understanding how I want content. No matter if it's a game with no drm, or music mp3 for sampling, I decide how to support an artist, not copyright. They want control? Fine, don't release it. I have plenty of other artists to look into.

So take your ad homs, your false equivalencies, and figure out how the world works. You have no idea of what artists like nor what copyright prevents. Quite frankly, copyright is not needed in the digital era so long as it induces censorship for content and takes away the value if a platform, it is not needed.

They want control? Fine, don't release it. I have plenty of other artists to look into.

This. A million times, this. When I hear an "artist" repeatedly whinging about nobody being allowed to do anything with their work without "permission," I simply lose interest, and stop listening to their music, watching their movie or show, or stop looking at their artwork.

They can hardly complain, either. After all, I'm fundamentally abiding by their wishes...

Re: Don't be surprised if the public doesn't agree with your anything goes attitude!

Well, it is true I once got $86.00 because I appeared in the background of a promotional video some network was shooting... But a free Internet as we now know it is worth a heck of a lot more than that to me.

I'll gladly give the 86 bucks back if the MPAA will agree to disband and stop trying to influence Congress

Stakeholders

Basic balance sheet

Let's do this analysis like a balance sheet. Let us consider first for the sake of example a homeowner and a bank. The homeowner has, as his ("his" being a gender-neutral pronoun for the purpose of this comment) asset, the house. The liabilities are the mortgage, which is debt, and the homeowner's own payments directly to paying off the house, which is equity. The bank has, as its asset, the mortgage, and as its liabilities, other deposits as debt along with possibly some equity. If the homeowner can no longer pay off the debt, the bank is allowed to seize the house. If the homeowner has too little equity, the chance of this happening is higher, ceteris paribus.

Now let's put this in terms of art and copyright. There are two entities: the public, and copyright-dependent artists (because more forward-thinking artists know what they're doing). The public has equity in the form of copyright, as it has given up its right for a limited time (please, no laughing) to works which should otherwise fall into the public domain. In return, the public consumes art, which is its asset. It does not have any debts in terms of arts. Artists have to have something to show (again, no laughing please) for greater copyright protection, so the copyright protection is its asset while the art itself is the liability. It must give said art to the public, so the art is debt rather than equity for the artist.

The public has infinite leverage over the artist, because the artist has no equity to show for greater copyright protection. This means that anytime the artists use copyright to stifle rather than create new art, they have defaulted on their obligations and the art should be seized and put into the public domain.

Re: Basic balance sheet

Re: Basic balance sheet

Chargone is right that this is a little bit tortured, but I like where you're going with it. Put some work into simplifying the language.

The public grants an artist a loan of a monopoly right in return for eventual full payment of the Progress of the Useful Arts and Sciences.

That's an interesting metaphor. "Intellectual property" "rights" are merely the proceeds of a loan and must be returned. It brings in the logic of banks setting agreeable terms (from the bank's perspective) into how IP law is structured.

Re: Re: Basic balance sheet

After all, just like no-one 'forces' you to buy a house, no-one 'forces' anyone to create art, let alone share it. So no-one should be 'forced' to pay for it in perpetuity - that would be like the bank allowing infinite defaulting on a loan.

Re: Basic balance sheet

Correction: as the artists' assets are the copyright protection, the protection must be seized and removed (which in the end necessitates putting the art into the public domain anyway).

Yeah, I suppose it's a bit of a stretch. TLDR: just as banks are stakeholders while homeowners and beneficiaries of houses, the public is the real stakeholder while artists are beneficiaries of copyright protection.

The problem with Ari Emanuel, Chris Dodd, and the like is that they think if they can just convene the "relevant people" they can determine the terms under which the rest of us give them our money.

I hate to break it to them, but I will be the one who determines the terms under which I give someone my money.

Sure, there are always going to be people who take your stuff without paying you for them, just as there are always going to be people who shoplift from Walmart (the main difference, is that, unlike Walmart, you haven't really lost anything tangible).

The rest of us just aren't going to give you our money. period. Nor do we find you material even worth "pirating", torrenting, or consuming it for free if it requires jumping through too many hoops.

And the main reason your content is "pirated" most often isn't because it is better (although in a lot of cases that may be true), but because it is the content that people are most aware of. And while you can keep that awareness high for a while by buying into the likes of a MySpace or eMusic and burying their alternate content under your own, or keeping your competition tied up in court until the go broke even they they are continually found to be legal, or bribe (excuse me, I mean "make contributions") to the government to shut down those you can't buy into or sue into the ground, you can slow the process, but you cannot stop it.

Those of us who are tired of your crap will always find out about the likes of an Amanda Palmer or a Dan Bull, or a Joe Konrath, or a Wil Wheaton, or a Kevin Smith or a Nice Peter, and we will contribute to them to produce the content we like, and we will promote them to others, in the hopes many of those others will stop "pirating" your content (and by pirating we mean consuming), and spend their time effort and money or people who really matter.

Re:

Yes ! Down with MAFIAA and a thumbs up to INDIE, Kickstarter,Wil Wheaton,Kevin Smith, ETC.
My money is never going to the MAFIAA again.
I am done with any of your Corporate Crud just like I have been done with RIAA/Big Label stuff since the 70's.
The World will be a much better place when it can put you MAFIAA in your place !!!

Especially a Smoke Filled Back Room

Who wants to seat in a room with a guy who says "they are just fat pipes, nothing more, one day they realize that the real product is the content not the pipe" or something along those lines, Ari crazy Emmanuel is not looking to talk he wants to bring in his prey and bash them over the head away from the public eyes.

The tech community should stay away from the entertainment industry as much as possible, nobody is going to save that Titanic from the bottom.

But what about me? I have this very nice revolving door gig lined up after this and if I don't get these laws passed I get nothing. The selfish public needs to stop thinking so much about themselves and their interests and they need to think more about me and my interests.

Thanks for quoting me!

Thanks for quoting my tweet. This is an important point to emphasize every chance you get.

However, like Mike C posted above, we'll have an uphill battle getting big business IP maximalists to listen to this point because they think their business depends on not recognizing it.

I pay a lot of attention to language, and I think the metaphors we choose to talk about legal concepts have a lot of power. People have long seen copyrights as "property", and I think the exclusion of the public from the "stakeholders" comes from the property metaphor, because the public is not seen as a stakeholder in your decision to put pink flamingos on your lawn. The next step in pushing the fact that the public is the most important stakeholder in copyright law is substituting better metaphors whenever we can.

I like Prashanth's post above introducing a "balance sheet" metaphor. That's moving in the right direction. We should use language that makes it clear the public has a stake here, and if we could get Prasanth's metaphor right, it could be a strong one that highlights the public's role as a partner and investor in the success of their work.

I like the metaphor "Ideas are Children" I started developing it in my thesis (sec 4.10), and I hope to continue at this year's Open Education Conference.

Re:

He said "public", not "consumers". Since you seem to have forgot, the public includes creators to. Furthermore, the point of copyright, the endgame, is expanding the public domain--everyone is a stakeholder.

Re:

Only if you live in a one-way world, where paternalistic corps feed the lazy masses their bread and circuses. In the real world, we are all part of the community, the 'public'. And yes, as the people who are supposed to be 'rewarded' with works entering the public domain, the 'public' (who include consumers - and even the coporate overlords are consumers) very much has a stake in what is happening. If the 'public' is irrelevant, then so are the gatekeepers: anyone want to buy a shiny new buggy whip?